Jump to content

User talk:Stuart.Jamieson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I like your edit on the Michael Scofield page

I agree with it. --70.127.201.57 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Barry Island Resort

Good idea to amalgamate all the Butlins Barry Island info onto one article. Are you stuck on the article name though? The camp existed for about 30 years, it was known as The Barry Island Resort for less than nine. The camp opened as Butlins Barry Island in 1966 and didn't change name until after 1987. How would you feel about a name change? Daicaregos (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, feel free to move it - the Barry Island Resort article already existed as an Orphan with more or less the same information as existed in both the Butlins article and the Barry island article. I just updated the information and altered the other pages to point to the Barry Island Resort article - ensuring only one copy of the content. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Just wanted to check with you first. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Welcome!

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Daicaregos (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous



Hi Stuart.Jamieson, sorry it's a bit late, but Welcome, anyway. Please let me know if there's anything you think I may be able to help you with. Daicaregos (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, I am a bit more experienced than I let on, having been editing under my IP address for the last 3 years, but will keep you in mind if there's anything I'm not sure on. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, good to see you anyway. You never know, some of those links could still come in handy. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) ps. as I say ... sorry it's a bit late!

Isla Fisher

You do realise that you blanked the page, yes? Please go back and correct it; I would do so, but one of the draconian edit filters keeps blocking my edit. Thanks, m:Katerenka (d) 07:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mobile phone browser barfed as I tried to undo the vandalism and blanked the page. I immediately tried to correct it and had the same problem as you with the edit filter - as I couldn't see the problem link from the mobile so it's taken me a few minutes to start my Laptop up and correct the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotta love the edit filter. Thanks, again. Cheers, m:Katerenka (d) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jewish atheists

Your argument makes use of a slippery-slope fallacy without taking into account the extenuating circumstances. In many cases, there is no need to disambiguate religion or ethnicity. THIS is not one of those case. You may want to look into what constitutes a valid argument on a discussion page if you are going to continue cat discussion in this vein. Also, BLPCAT probably wasn't the place to start a discussion. Purplebackpack89 20:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary I take into account the circumstances but I believe those circumstances to be clear from the nature of the title. You are unnecessarily hairsplitting the category and by doing so removing a significant proportion of people who can be considered Jewish. If someone is adoptively raised by a Jewish family and considers themselves Jewish through cultural background yet philosophically considers themselves atheist then they fit the criteria of Jewish Atheist (presuming we have reliable sources to validate this) they do not fit the criteria of Atheist of Jewish descent. Similarly you could consider the case of an individual whose parents have converted to Judaism but are of a very clear ethnic background (African American for example) and raise their child as Jewish but he decides he's an atheist - again he fits the first criteria but not the second.
The BLP cat was about a change in the wording of BLPCAT (or potentially EGRS) to clarify the issue of when someone is Jewish the discussion had partly been raised in three other locations the next step was to debate an actual policy change as to how we deal with Jewish Categorisation and listing and BLPCAT is exactly the place that change should be discussed because it's that policy that often causes the contention of looking for a self-identification to categorise as Jewish.
Don't get me wrong I've voiced a similar position to yours on List of Jewish actors but there it's because because individuals who can be identified as of Jewish Descent and who regularly play roles identifying with Jewish Culture or Jewish Religion were being removed from the list because no source could be found that made an explicit identification of the individual as Jewish which I felt was removing the encyclopedic value of the article - I don't think that's the case or an issue with Category:Jewish atheists Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Island (Holiday Camp)

Perhaps we should try to have the page semi-protected if it is moved again. Thing is, if the IP were to make a reasonable case for the move I may possibly agree, but otherwise it's not on. Daicaregos (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some psychic ability because I was just reading through the protection pages to work out how much vandalism the article would have to have received to be eligible for semi-protection. I wonder whether this has some connection to Sick 3's earlier attempt at a similar move without discussion, possibly a sign of Sock Puppetry? I agree that if a compelling argument was to be put forward I would consider it, however ideally at some point I would like to presume that all Butlins camps should have their own articles and that those articles should have a common naming style. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Likely is a sock. Vandalism's at a fairly low level, but I don't want to be accused of a slow burning edit war if it carries on - as it may. How did you get on with the grounds for eligibility? Is it worth the hassle? Daicaregos (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Should be eligible - it certainly would be for a move protection but since the move is occurring through a cut&paste I would say we label it persistent vandalism hopefully with luck it won't occur again and we won't require to do so. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome ...

... to the world of Wikipedia editors with User pages :)
I like the flag, by the way. Daicaregos (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, cheers I was getting fed up with the RedLink with my name on it at the top of every page.
The Flag is an antidote to having visited BritishWatcher's Page Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll second that. Nice flag. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jack :) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Court documents

I'll reply here because that thread on Jimmy Wales' page is going on longer than it needs to. There are many problems with court documents which are primary and self-published sources, and have the weaknesses of both. One simple problem with many court documents is provenance. While some are available online from courthouses, many more are housed on private websites. A photocopy is somewhat self-proving, but PDFs like this would look kind of suspicious if they weren't on an official website.[1] Then there's the problem of the complexity of legal filings and court procedures. We might see a filing in a lawsuit but not know that it was dismissed immediately, or that it was filed in the wrong court. Affidavits can include all kinds of wild accusations, and no one is editing or reviewing them. Primary sources need to be used without interpretation, but it can be difficult to know the significance or meaning of some legal actions or phrases. Also, primary sources haven't passed through the filter of a secondary source, so it can be difficult to know the importance of a particular action. (Imagine if we started searching for court cases involving celebrities and quoting from their divorce papers.) Court documents have been discussed several times at WP:RSN. If you're interested, the archives have a search function.   Will Beback  talk  08:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that, which is why I mentioned an editor "walking down to the court to get a copy of the documents for £25" so that it's a genuine copy and not tampered with by whoever is hosting it for whatever reao. I may take a look at the RSN archives but the problem is in the discussion of RSN will mostly about the addition of data - if the (genuine) court document is presented as a reason to temporarily remove information from an article until the previous sourcing can be weighed up, then I believe it's a reasonably cautious and judicious approach. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement. Also, just to round out the discussion, it's my understanding that court documents on Smoking Gun are a little different. It's part of a big corporation, and they pick and summarize documents (the secondary source roles) as well as provide reliable primary sources (the documents themselves).   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Many thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent, and gracious notes on my talkpage and elsewhere. Especially coming from an editor I can't recall ever dealing with before, it was highly appreciated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

I will have to say that the discussion we have had at the List of Jewish actors DRV has so far seem to have the most productive and reasoned so far. Thanks for taking the time to actually break away from WP:ILIKEIT and actually have an informed and intelligent opinion. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Removed Unnecessary Copyvio message
Please understand this has nothing to do with the Epeefleche CCI request, besides that your comments there made me check an article created by you. I will look at more of your contributions later. Yoenit (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This has everything to do with the CCI request, as your comments on the CCI page show. As a newish writer I made a mistake in how I rewrote a source. I learned from similar mistakes, corrected them and avoided them in future. Yet you post the copyvio template up here as though I had made that mistake only yesterday in reality it was almost a whole year ago. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I am required to leave that template when a page is taken to wp:cp for copyright problems. It is not really relevant that those edits were made a year ago, as they were still in the article yesterday. However, it is good to hear you have corrected similar issues in other articles already. I sincerely hope no further cleanup of your early edits is necessary. Yoenit (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In reply to your post on the CCI page, I did not follow up with any other edits because I did not check any yet. I picked a page at random from your userpage, which happened to be McCowan's. Yoenit (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This did not require being taken to wp:cp except to make a wp:point regarding my statements on wp:CCI, yes - the text was paraphrased from the original sources and required further rewriting but it took all of 10 minutes to sort out instead we now have to go through an OTRS review process for little addition benefit. It was not a civil way to proceed and even less civil were your speculations that it was "part of a larger pattern." or your claim that "it seems my worries were correct:" still waiting to see any evidence from you that this article proves either of these claims. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked a bit more of your contribution history and found no further problems. My comment that this "may be part of a larger pattern" was premature and I apologize for it. With regards to "review by an administrator or OTRS agent", the exact same thing happens with any pages tagged by Corensearchbot (although the tags are certainly less overwhelming). I have moved your temporary version to the main article, removed the tag and commented on the wp:cp listing. Yoenit (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the retraction, and apology. They are graciously accepted. My experience of Corensearchbot tags was that it did not blank the page and would allow the offending material to be edited out without creating a temporary version at /temp this was a much easier situation to resolve. On your concerns raised about my opinion on the subject of the CCI (at the CCI) I still maintain that Epeefleche has neither legally created a copyright issue nor morally created a plagiarism issue. he has taken only occasional statements of fact into the article from the source documents these are not creative analysis on the part of the source containing originality - they are mostly observations that have little scope for rewording and he has done his best to reword them within that scope - occasionally there is a slight transfer of specificness (like the use of "Arm Twisting") that could be reworded further but doing so may lose the intent of the secondary source and still provides no real analysis or risk of copyvio or plagiarism. In fact such statements of fact are explicitly detailed to be presented in this way by WP:INTEXT so as not to infer that these facts were observed only by that individual source, however in-line citation should remain to prove that they had indeed been observed. Overall I do not believe that wjemather's intentions were frivolous but while made in good faith were at best misconceived and unnecessary; and were he not deliberately hounding Epeefleche, would not have been of any concern to anyone.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:94.197.244.101 and English Heritage

Hi there. With regard to this silly little incident, I've attempted to discuss the issue with the editor rationally at Talk:English Heritage#Inaccurate or Misleading Information on Its Listed Buildings Website - here is the information that justifies the edit: send and email address and I will forward. (that's a mouthful!) and seem to be hitting a bit of a brick wall. The unsourced edit is still up, and I have no real interest in getting into a revert war with him. If you're interested, your thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lead section

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson. You have new messages at Talk:Time travel urban legends.
Message added 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Inflation

Stuart, you may be interested in the discussion at User talk:Nev1#Template:Inflation, with reference to the Billy Butlin article. What do you think - carry on regardless? Daicaregos (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bank of England (And our Template) base their result on the Retail a composite Price Index and suggest that this is the best figure for calculating true inflation. If we agree that this is a routine calculation that reflects the source them WP:Calc would appear to apply. I'll add appropriate sourcing to the inflation amounts as well.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stuart. Good to have you back. Daicaregos (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dai, thanks - wasn't really away but Real Life has me quite busy just now and the Billy Butlin Article is mostly left with things that take a bit of concentration to deal with - will fit them in as and when I can. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"who do you think you are" - I'm a user and contributor towards wikipedia. I hold as much right to edit those pages as you do. "Resort instead of Camp" - On the talk page which you reference, user wearebutlins, the username used by Butlins itself for social networking (see footer of butlins.com) puts across a very valid argument for why the term 'Resort' is actually more accurate and is the preferred term. There is no justification for the use of the term camp - wikipedia isn't a place where we can all be nostalgic and call it camp because that's what they used to be called or because it would be promoting their corporation. The terminology these days IS resorts. Now, considering that Butlins is on my side with this, it's a bit silly to be insisting on "Camps". In your argument against Butlins, you also state that "the British have always in the past used the term "Camp" to refer to such sites within the UK" but yet you cite no sources to back up your claim. As Butlins' preferred terminology is Resort, an they've preferred this for the past fourteen-ish years, it's hardly "recentism". Before that there were holiday worlds, and do you have anything to prove that the resorts were ever referred to as "camps"?

With regards to the inappropriate tone, take, for example "For some time Billy Butlin had nurtured the idea of a holiday camp." Taken from Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopaedic content, should be written in a formal tone." The point in that tag was to signify that this isn't a "History of Butlins" book, it's part of an encyclopaedia.

The name of the article "Ingoldmells (holiday camp)" makes no reference to the resort's actual name or any of its previous names. It's not ever been known as that, nor is it Colloquially known as that. Such an article title gives the impression that the resort is named "Ingoldmells" and is a "Holiday Camp" - both are wrong. The Resort is known as Butlins Resort Skegness, that is what people would search for and that is where the article should be. This is an active resort and its corresponding wiki article should carry it's current name.

For the category box template, the past and current resorts are not distinguished - these resorts have closed or been sold off and should not be mixed amongst the resorts currently being operated by Butlins. There would be no point in discussing anything on the talk page because the "overlord" of the Butlins section would just reject any changes because they don't agree with the changes. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and as such, I don't have to think I'm anyone if I want to change the page. It's not for you to decide, and by using the term "Camp" you are using incorrect terminology without the grounds to do so.

Feel free to continue this discussion. --Timtastik (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Butlins

Unfortunately, I'm going to let this lie here, not because you're right, if anything, it's quite the opposite. If you believe you're right and believe that you're somehow in control of this section, that's fine. If you'd like to reject any changes or improvements made to this section of pages in terms of its content or naming, then go ahead. I'm not in any position to be wasting time bickering with someone who sees themselves as the unelected dictator of a section who feels that whatever they feel is right, or who feels that a GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH is an accurate way of determining anything. I fear you harbour some serious misconceptions on how Wikipedia works and I think you need to understand how it exists as a purely collaborative project, and I think that your comments and attitude toward other editors and toward actual Butlins staff are a bit ridiculous. From reading the talk pages, this "consensus" you so frequently refer to is nothing but a figment of your imagination, in fact said consensus is actually just you making an executive decision when you're in no position to do so. Anybody who argues against you is apparently doing something evil and if you want to believe that, that's fine, as I've said, just go ahead. Continue cherry picking bits of Wikipedia guidance and rules and disregarding those bits which don't quite fit to what you're doing, and continue maintaining this awful section of pages in whatever awful way you see fit.

I'd like to request no further correspondence. Timtastik (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited. You've expressed interest in the past. Already 4 days into the certification poll.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Colchester

Hello, I have seen that you nominated, the page I created. You have not put any reason for the AfD, so please remove the template as soon as possible. Thank you. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Adam, Twinkle isn't working at the moment either in Chrome or Opera so I had to do the AfD manually - This takes time to write the reason and had you been patient (giving me more that 11 minutes to write it) you would have seen the reason. Since you are aware of the AfD I'll skip the step of informing you. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

re comments at WP:RUS

I mean to get back to that, and I will now, although I don't want to get into a fight over anything either.

I got to thinking about some of this, and I was wondering if there shouldn't be a more general guideline about some of this. WP:RUS is a great thing and a lot of hard work went into it, but I'm not sure individual projects should make these decisions or not. Anyway, I got sidetracked into a general question/proposal/rant about the translation of names in general, which is here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Titles of things should be translated, yes?. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson. You have new messages at Talk:Weeping Angels.
Message added 10:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic?

Thanks for the Close, it's greatly appreciated. Stuart.Jamieson 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in writing an essay on transport I'd be willing to help. SilkTork *Tea time 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be good, thanks. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Billy Butlin - GA

I've passed it. Thanks for your help with the review and for a really interesting article. NtheP (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Stuart. Good to see the the new logo there. Ready for the next step yet? Daicaregos (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NtheP thanks for the pass, I think it's interesting enough for a WP:FA and would like to aim for that - do you have any feedback on improving it further?
Dai, Thanks for the help and support - I see from the Dashboard you're the second biggest contributor to the article, so take a bow for your own work. At the moment I've got another GA in progress for Butlins Skegness but once that's done I'll be looking to take Billy to the next step. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a small nod from me, rather than a bow. The work was yours. Though it was a pleasure to have helped. I'm a little fuzzy on the improvements necessary between GA & FA. Do you intend to go through peer review before FAC? If so, I know of a couple of likely lads who've been there, seen it, done it. Happy to pass the names on if you need them. Good luck with Skegness. Cheers for now, Daicaregos (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Stuart, I've my first FAC that I'm resubmitting soon and it's a very stiff test and much harder than I thought it would be from a GA. I'd really suggest peer review first. They are especially hot of plagarism and close paraphrasing so if the article isn't entirely free of parphrase you might have a hard time. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Close paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio et al for an ongoing discussion on this. NtheP (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NtheP, If you check the Talkpage history, you'll see that I requested a Peer review from WP:BIO on getting the article to FA via GA back in November and still hadn't received one by the time I started the GAN in April. I hope the Central Peer Review is less backlogged than there. Some of the content and feedback from the Skegness Article may help improve the Butlin one, which is why I'm waiting for that to complete. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
My experience is that central PRs requests get responded to much faster than vai projects. NtheP (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Butlins Skegness

Congratulations. I have awarded this article a GA. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the award, and helping me get it up to that level. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I see further congratulations are due to you Stuart. This is becoming a habit. Well done : ) Daicaregos (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank's Dai, The tips you gave me to improve Billy Butlin to GA level, certainly helped me improve my overall editing. Though I don't have any other articles immediately ready for a push to GA perhaps another couple of Bs might be possible. I've asked for a PR for Billy Butlin and will take a look at what's needed for FA on it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Butlin peer review

Feel free to tell me to push off, but if you wish I'd be happy to do a thorough copy-edit of the article as it stands, rather than chucking in one-off comments on the PR page. Please ponder and let me know. Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to accept. Researching/writing I'm reasonable at but copy-editing is a weakness of mine; so all I'm likely to do is implement each change you suggest (unless it's big - like a large paragraph rewording) so cutting out the middleman might be better for the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Good. Give me 24 hours. Tim riley (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Rcsprinter123

Thanks for the notification, I had forgotten he even had an alternate account! I've left him a message at his talk page and will see where it goes. Thanks again. WormTT · (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

JAG/NCIS (franchise)

Hello, I noticed that you proposed deletion today. If it isn't that way, should we rename the article? Also, what should be there, and what shouldn't be there? Give me the list of things and I can try my best to improve. Suite1408 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved the article with a new name. Now what else do I have to do in order to prevent it from being deleted?Suite1408 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think moving it helped, in fact in my mind it has made the original search worse. I fail to see any reliable sources that consider all these series to be part of a single franchise. Franchises generally share names/themes/styles but change location/time while that is true of NCIS it is not of JAG and the fact that the backdoor Pilot for NCIS was in JAG does not change that. Even if you were to remove JAG from the article however you would really just be discussing the same ground as NCIS (tv series), as the franchise is so small and I think the reasons for keeping are few and far between. Finally please note how our other franchise articles are written Law & Order (franchise) and Star Trek being reasonable examples - concentrate on sourced prose discussing the similarities/differences rather than trivia lists.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean that I should find how the whole franchise was created? Besides, I was trying to find those sources. I've been asking for help, but I've gotten no where. I do need help on getting stuff together to avoid the trivia stuff. Suite1408 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
How about you straighten things out on the article, because I don't understand what's going on exactly. If you can't, do you know another Wikipedian that is elligible to do what needs to be done to save the article? Suite1408 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Let me try and explain again - There is no such thing as a "Jag" Franchise. For it to exist NCIS would have been titled "JAG: NCIS" and NCIS: LA would have been "JAG: NCIS LA". NCIS was introduced through a backdoor pilot, but this does not make it part of JAG as your article is claiming. There are no reliable sources to back up the claim that NCIS is part of JAG. The same would be true if you decided to claim that "The Finder" was part of a "Bones" franchise - it's not - it was just introduced through a backdoor pilot but it's otherwise independent.
Clearly there is an NCIS franchise as LA is titled "NCIS: LA" but with only a single spinoff most of the material that would go into an NCIS (franchise) article already exists in NCIS (TV series) and there is (at the moment no need for an article on the franchise unless another Spinoff from NCIS is created. In short I do not believe the article has merit and you would be better improving NCIS (TV series) instead. Since you have removed my Proposed deletion I will list the article at WP:AfD where you can try and defend the existence of the article to a selection of editors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you may delete the article. I think I see what you are saying. It's sorta like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and Homicide: Life on the Street. Even though John Munch appeared on both of them as a regular, they aren't spin-offs. Understand that I will find out a way alone to revive this article with proper information. It's kinda hard the way you look at it, because JAG is older than NCIS. Suite1408 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You were involved in a discussion here, which has been alluded to in a new discussion here. I'm letting all editors in that first discussion, other than those who are already participating and one who has been banned from interacting with me for hounding, know of this newer discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Butlin's Ayr

Hi,

I posted a comment discussing the choice of main photo for this article at Talk:Butlin's_Ayr. Would be interested to hear your response. Thanks! Yottanesia (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Stuart. I've just left Tenebrae a message. While I think he shouldn't have removed your post, I'm not sure it was the wisest thing in the world for you to have done in the first place. And now there's an argument about it, when we have more substantial matters to settle. Given that you say that you're saying nothing, how about you just self-revert and remove the post yourself? --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think there would be any issue in informing GRuban about the mediation and why I wasn't replying to his counterargument. Obviously Tenebrae has a different way of looking at things so in good faith I've allowed his second removal to stand. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Good of you, thank you. Perhaps what's needed is greater clarity at the Demi Moore talk page that there is mediation ongoing. I'll post a suggestion at the mediation page. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Holy cow, I take a couple days off and the SS blitzkriegs my page! Thank you for being among those editors fighting this crazy vandal. That was very considerate of you, and I do appreciate the kind gesture very much. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Coachmaster

I had already asked the closing non-admin to revert their close due to this article not being dealt with. Since they did not, I went ahead and did so. As part of that, I've removed the duplicate nomination you posted (though I added the article links to the original nom). The debate is now open again. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom RfC

Trying to get some path set here for how to proceed on the ArbCom RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify

Hi, Stuart. I didn't mean to imply you had attacked me, as had Andy the Grump had with his unwarranted and inaccurate accusations of bad faith on my part and his amateur psychological analysis. I was speaking preemptively, and I apologize for giving any other impression. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your argument with Tenebrae

I have removed it from the talk page for being off-topic. You're both very close to at least a cooling-off block. I advise you to drop it - it's achieving nothing at all, other than enraging one another. --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's Fine Thanks, I was just about to post to say again that I would have no further comment until his issue was being dealt with by an admin. removing it serves a similar purpose. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-Wiki contact

I've been alerted to this edit in which you've asked User:AndyTheGrump to contact you off-Wiki. Since the only or the primary article o which you have both worked is Demi Moore, and since you made a concerted effort there to pry into my personal life, which I found personally harassing, I am stating for the record that if this involves me in any way, I will seek admin intervention for this continued personal harassment of me. I respectfully request an answer, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You can respectfully have an answer, the Off-wiki contact relates to the specific behaviour of one of the unknown I.P's who appeared on Talk:Demi Moore and did some other odd things and I wanted to bounce a question off Andy about it. As you explicitly stated that you never posted as an I.P when I asked if you had ever accidentally posted whilst logged out [2] I'm sure I can rule the Off Wiki contact being about you out. Again as I said on Talk:Demi Moore I made no "concerted effort" to pry into personal life - Without revealing your identity, I've already made a declaration to an Admin explaining how a single comment you made during the mediation revealed your identity to me with no "investigation" on my part - If that admin decides that your personal life, and your editing related to your personal life, need further investigation then that will be up to them and/or arbcom to decide. I don't need or want to have any further part in that process. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your consideration in this regard. To reconfirm: No anon IP in the discussion was me.
Regarding the identity issue: I do believe it's protocol to notify another party if you're making accusations against them. I'd been content to drop the issue of what I considered personal harassment, but if you're discussing the issue with an admin, I believe both sides have a right to be heard. I would hope that you do, as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


For the record my declaration to the admin was general in nature and did not identify your user account either - there is at this stage no direct accusation against you (although it could be said that this discussion is making you appear to be the subject). If the admin wishes to debate the specifics of the case then I'm sure they will make the effort to contact you about those specifics once they request them from me - for the moment the admin appears to have taken an unannounced wikibreak and has not been editing since I contacted them so it may yet be some time before they respond. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If this doesn't involve my personal identity and it's on the up-and-up, I question why you're being clandestine and not doing things in public.
I also see you've apparently been keeping track of me and, without my permission or consent, moved an image to Commons that I had uploaded and which I had asked to have removed from Wikipedia months ago, and thought had been removed. I don't understand why you're taking such an inordinate interest in me and in my edits, but I am asking you to stop because it is creepy and I find it harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Nope, but your talkpage is still on my watchlist because I posted there previously and I regularly comment on deletion requests that appear on my watchlist (generally I'm inclusionist and will seek to retain though my record at AFD is probably closer to equal inclusion/deletion.) In this case I saw that we had very few free images (only two that I could see) of this individual and while this one was no longer serving a purpose on Wikipedia it would serve a purpose on commons - I suggested this to the deleting admin who agreed and allowed it to be restored for transfer to commons which I then undertook. as for permission please check the license you uploaded the image under - it grants any individual this permission there is no need to further contact you about it. I really so hope you willl stop with these baseless accusations of bad faith. Claiming every time our editing overlaps is "creepy" is unhelpful if you really think I'm hounding you then I've said before where to take the complaint.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do you have my talk page on your watchlist? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Our editing paths didn't cross for over six years, and now you're following my deletion requests on my talk page. How is that not following me? Why can't you leave me alone? Do you really lack empathy so much that you can't see how your actions are making another editor feel? Or is it that you just don't care and you'll continue to shadow me for all your born days. I am asking you, human being to human being, to just go your way let and let me go mine. If either one of us does something horrible on Wikipedia, I'm sure other editors will let us know. Please ... take me off your watchlist and stop following me. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to read the notice box at the top of this talkpage " If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." If you then check your talkpage you'll see that I left you a message on 5th January hence were added to my watchlist. I only generally remove deleted pages from my watchlist and I recall you thanking me for watching your page when you were suffering from Nazi Vandalism problems - if you want it removed consider it done, don't make so much wikidrama out of it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

You idiot. Those images were all created by myself, the Preston one is a collage and I got permission from the photographers of all those pictures, the Leyland Almshouses one is down Fox Lane, the road that I happen to live on you stupid person. (Preston North End Dan (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

We need to see that permission to host it on Wikipedia - They all give permission if you follow the licensing terms - Which you haven't. The Leyland Almshouses image was taken by an Ann Cook if this is you I'm sure you can provide proof through the OTRS system, you can also provide evidence that you have permission to use those images in a collage the same way - Every image you have uploaded has been taken/created by someone else (and has someone else's name on it in the original location), yet every image you have declared as being taken by you. You might want to rethink you claim here.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
For the Record aside from Ann Cook, you have uploaded photographs/images credited to Dave Dobson, David Schultz, Galatas and Hagey, Google Ltd, Lancaster County Council, and others.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man

When you say you prefer a footnote you mean like this? Jhenderson 777 16:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but per the Spirit of WP:INFOBOX I would be adding the figure to the Infobox and footnoting it in the way you demonstrate. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure you are referring to MOS:INFOBOX. As for the inclusion for the placing it on the infobox I am not sure a actor/stuntman's word is reliable enough to be official enough for the infobox. What is your thoughts on that? Jhenderson 777 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes That's right MOS:INFOBOX: The Infobox should be summarising facts about the subject, not providing navigation to places - in the article or out - where the facts can be found. I do have concerns about the reliability of Norton's statement in the article at all but it's really a question for WP:RSN to answer. It may be that it represents an reliable assessment of the budget at the time Norton was informed of it, even if it later increased or decreased. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Still in my mind it's not that reliable to be 100% sure. Unless there was a way to tell that it might not be official on the infobox. Footnotes aren't noticed all the time. Jhenderson 777 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Agree, Having looked through other sources - with Hollywood Reporter claiming the studio is only spending $80m on it and other estimates putting it up to $120-$125m, I wonder if Norton's comment should be taken not in the sense of "The Budget for this movie is $220m" but more in the sense of "This movie is (quality wise) comparable to a $220m movie." even if far less has been spent on it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What if we just put (estimated) like what IMDb did. If not there is still IP editors putting the budget up if you have concern with it. I think we mostly have the source that is explaining the budget....but I don't think it's official to be just there without placing a word like (estimated) or some other word on there. And maybe a note explaining the particular sources mention of the budget if there was one source that contradicted another. Jhenderson 777 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I am going to take this to in the actual article talk page instead. Although I would love you to point to the Hollywood Reporter source please. Jhenderson 777 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson. You have new messages at [[User talk:ItsZippy#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallia Storm|ItsZippy's talk page]].
Message added 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

Would you call being very rude to the Wikipedia community 'trying to do the right thing'? I don't think so. I was merely removing untrue content.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  10:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Policy is very clear: "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong" Whether or not you consider the content to be untrue (Though you may also want to consider WP:V - Truth is not the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia - Verifability is.) you have no right to remove anything from another user's page - end of discussion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case 'Verify' he is doing the right thing. And as your quote says: "'may be considered vandalism. This was your opinion.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  11:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's my opinion and also (you'll find) the opinion of most wikipedians who don't look favourably on other editors tampering with their userpage unless it's to fix something and really Semantics isn't the issue here it's your behaviour take the slap on the wrist and learn from it rather than trying weasel your way out of it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why ANI?

With this request for a look over, I'm curious - why did you take it to ANI specifically? Since it is a request fior a general look-over of the lot of them as opposed to regarding any one incident, would perhaps AN not fit better? -— Isarra ༆ 00:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, AN is for discussion if the admin process "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." Any request for an Admin (or experienced user) to undertake a task should be made through ANI - independant if the size or urgency of the request. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI is for incident reports, though, and there are other general requests on AN. It really shouldn't even matter, though; it's just given the heightened potential for needless drama inherent in ANI I'm a little concerned. But hopefully nothing improper will come of it. -— Isarra ༆ 02:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_DeBerry

Pool & Spa News is a part of Hanley Wood publications. It is a national publication that is distributed in the tens of thousands. It does not use every run of the mill pool company, it only uses reliable companies and executives with note worthy inclusion, the pool industry has hundreds of companies in each city only worthy nationally known companies are accepted and covered, we are talking about a large industry. The editors of such magazine are from LA times, etc, it’s a worthy publication. Also the Orlando sentinel is a large newspaper with high circulation. Ink19 is a weekly paper at the time of print had over tens of thousands in distribution. Radio stations such as WTKS and WJRR have some of the highest listener base and wide coverage as well XM /sirus is national - I’m hopeful for some reconsidering. i am looking built upon, i want to stay an editor for the long term and participate WinsnerB1942 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD

Hello, Stuart. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don McGregor

I did see the episode, and for whatever it's worth I can vouch that he's credited onscreen. I'm not sure offhand where one would go for credits confirmation -- TV.com is a wikia, for example. If third-party sourcing can be found, it would seem, on the surface, to be worth mentioning that he has written an episode of the series (or more generally that he has written for animated TV series, if he has — I don't know offhand). I hope this helps; while I've contributed to the article, many other editors certainly have as well, and some many know this particular area better than I. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD

Hiya, Stuart. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 16:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Carronade images

Hi Stuart. Thanks for spotting that peculiar error and alerting me. I must have taken the name from googlemaps at the time when I first labelled the images. They were posted onto the geograph website, so I'll have to change the name there as well as here. I'll do that presently. It will probably take a couple of days before the google search return registers the change. (I'm currently creating a page on White Horse Close in Edinburgh and finding it difficult to break away from work in progress. At least I've got name right this time!) Kim Traynor (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Stardust

Hi Stuart. I've replied about Stardust (2007 film) at my Talk page. Feel free to drop by! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stuart.Jamieson. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 02:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

Hi. Do you have a consensus to remove these references? --John (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal has been raised several times, such as here at the helpdesk, and currently at WP:RSN where no defence of the source has been made - it's also being monitored by WP:SPAM but is not as yet blacklisted. The site gives no evidence of reliability or editorial quality and clearly identifies that subjects can be promoted on a commercial basis. I'm only currently removing where it doesn't add anything to existing stronger sources in the work, or in the case of lists where the linked article has better stronger sources and the rest of the list is otherwise relatively unsourced. There are of course other unreliable advertising sites that are similar in nature but, I certainly know of few that have such a prolific usage as a source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and I don't disagree with the conclusion that it's a weak source. What stronger source is left to reference the material here though (that's just a sample as it's the one that came up on my watchlist this morning)? It looks to me like the removal leaves the material unreferenced which it is hard to argue is an improvement. --John (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The source earlier in that paragraph Cohen, Susan; Cohen, Daniel (2000). Pan AM 103: the bombing, the betrayals, and a bereaved family's search for justice. covers the same material on page 209 if not also on the cited page (159) - there may be some of my edits need a little reworking like moving that source to the bottom of the paragraph and citing other pages but generally they should be an improvement. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the replies. Sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologise, it's better to ask the question and be sure than be apathetic and let someone vandalise the encyclopaedia unchallenged. If you happen to see any other ref like the Pan Am one that need adjustment let me know and I'll be happy to fix it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I was just being polite, I always would ask if I saw someone doing what you were doing. Having seen the discussions you pointed me to, I was completely satisfied that those were good edits. Thanks for making them, and for answering my questions. It's good to meet you, and let me know if you ever need any help.--John (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, this explains the edit to Oliver Cromwell. If it's queried, I'll link to this on his talk page. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Oliver Cromwell one is one I've been having an internal debate about. I couldn't find a scholarly source that supported US's claim. In the end I opted to go with the figures from a scholarly source and remove US ones. This is actually one of the less difficult cleanups as there are several lists where many items are sourced to US, there's also a few minor geographical claims that are contested by other articles on WP but not RS for either case. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Please desist from doing this in this manner. If you were doing what you are saying (removing a weaker source where a stronger one gives the same information) I would have no problem. However, examining your edits I've seen various instances where removing the source has left material unsourced. I suspect if I look I may find more. It is not helpful not to tell the reader where information has come from especially if the source is weaker. The point is to improve articles and sourcing not remove sources for dogmatic reasons. You might do better if you engaged on article talk pages and suggested to those who are watching where they might improve sourcing. Thanks.--Scott Mac 03:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on your page of the pages you have flagged 1 was a virtually unsourced index article where the linked article had better sources this is little different from a category. The use of this source in that list was little more than linkspam exactly what this site has been reported for in the past. 1 was sourced but the source was on the following paragraph - similar to the Lockerbie case above, 1 was sourced but the link was dead - I've now corrected this. The final one is one where you ave written an entire article hung primarily on this source - When I removed I mistakenly believed the national trust source was strong enough to cover the material but its website is devoid of the detail required - it can be source to the guidebook which I've ordered a copy of to ensure it covers all the material before changing the article again. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Open paragraph help

Hi, I noticed you commented on the Isla Fisher talk page regarding WP:OPENPARA a while back. I would really appreciate it if you could please take the time to offer a third party opinion to help resolve a similar issue on this talk page so consensus could be reached. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Stuart.Jamieson; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mr Jamieson, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus Routes

Just thought you would like to know that there has been a lot more lists which have been nominated for deletion which can be viewed here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first ever Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Henry Cavill

I'm having trouble figuring this one out. The source does use the term "Anglais" in reference to him, though I can't quite figure out why. I've left a note at WP:BLPN, as this isn't a very high-traffic article, and a talk page thread is likely to go unnoticed for days or weeks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

A recent discussion that you had participated in on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion regarding articles with "List of bus routes in..." has been relisted due to the amount of redundant requests submitted. This discussion has been centralized and has been posted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. You input regarding these redirects as a whole is welcomed. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 22:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time travel urban legends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stuart.Jamieson/Archive_4&oldid=1142797528"